IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION STATE OF MONTANA, BY AND Case No. CV-24-180-BMM THROUGH ITS GOVERNOR, MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF LIVESTOCK AND MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS, AMENDED ORDER FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSOLIDATION Plaintiff, v. DOUG BURGUM, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior, et al., Defendants. ALLIANCE FOR THE WILD Case No. CV-25-12-BMM ROCKIES, and COUNCIL ON FISH & WILDLIFE, Plaintiffs, v. KATHERINE HAMMOND, National Park Service Regional Director for Interior Regions 6, 7, and 8, et al., Defendants. 1 BACKGROUND

On August 28, 2025, the State of Montana (State) moved this Court for the administrative consolidation of State of Montana v. Burgum, et al., CV-24-180- BMM (Montana) and Alliance for the Wild Rockies, et al. v. Katherine Hammond,

et. al, CV 25-12-BMM (Alliance). The State seeks administrative consolidation of the two cases, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). The State asks that administrative consolidation occur for pretrial scheduling purposes only, and that each case remain independent in terms of party participation.

Both cases involve substantially similar parties, facts, and legal issues. Placing the cases on parallel schedules promotes judicial economy and reduces the likelihood of confusion and prejudice. As such, consolidation is appropriate.

DISCUSSION Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) states that when multiple actions before a court involve common questions of law or fact, that court may join those actions for hearing or trial, consolidate the actions, or issue any other orders to

avoid unnecessary cost or delay. A district court has broad discretion in determining whether to consolidate cases pursuant to Rule 42(a), and may even do so sua sponte. Inv’rs Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist.,

,

777 (9th Cir. 1989); Upper Mo. Waterkeeper v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 2020

, *21 (D. Mont. 2020). When exercising its discretion, the Court balances judicial convenience against potential delay, confusion, and

prejudice that could result from consolidation. Anderson v. Delten,

, *2 (D. Mont. 2018). Both Montana and Alliance challenge the sufficiency of the 2024

Yellowstone National Park (YNP) Bison Management Plan and associated National Environmental Policy Act analysis. While plaintiffs in both cases seek remand of the plan, the Montana plaintiff asks that the record of decision be vacated. Conversely, the Alliance plaintiffs ask that remand occur without vacatur.

If the two cases are allowed to advance on different schedules, there is risk of confusion and prejudice due to conflicting rulings or rulings that preempt the other case.

Given the early nature of the State’s motion, and that there is no case management order in either Montana or Alliance, administrative consolidation will not prejudice the parties in either action. In its motion, the State acknowledges that it did not confer with Alliance

parties regarding its motion, but offered to do so at the Court’s direction. Given the Court’s inherent power “to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants,” Landis v.

N. Am. Co.,

(1936), the Court’s authority to consolidate cases 3 sua sponte, and the common questions of law and fact warranting administrative consolidation pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), the Court sees no need for additional conferral or briefing in Alliance. For the foregoing reasons, administrative consolidation is appropriate and so ordered. The Court determines that the State’s motion for administrative consolidation of Montana and Alliance should be granted. ORDER The Clerk of this Court is directed to consolidate Case No. CV-24-180-BLG- BMM, State of Montana, et al., v. Haaland, et al with Case No. CV-25-12-BLG-BMM, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, et al., v. Katherine Hammond. All future documents shall be filed in the lead case CV-24-180-BLG-BMM. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), the above-captioned cases are consolidated for scheduling purposes. It is ORDERED that the parties for both matters submit a proposed joint case management plan for entry in each case on or before November 15, 2025. DATED this 23rd day of September 2025. Le od 4 V f 4 Brian Morris, Chief District Judge SOSOSCS~*S United States District Courts